Well the white house had its usuall excuse about the banner, saying "the navy put that banner up".

In the presidents most recent speach, he did not say victory once. This leads me to believe that we are not in this war to win, we are in it to not lose.

I cant watch the video right now but I assume that its about how the media backed the white house on everything related to foreign policy.
This is not a surprise to me because in my opinion, the media wants ratings. It always has and always will. The world could be ending, and fox would cover it to the last second.

What that leads me to believe is after the intel failure of 9-11, the United States was in a shocked state, and after the white house was done trying to unify everyone with american flags (while the media enjoyed high ratings), it was in more of an angry, blame game state. Therefore the media would move to capitolize on this anger by portraying president Bush as "tough on terrorism".

That led to the mind games of Donald Rumsfeld, who basically ignored intel once again just as Condelezza Rice did before the 9-11 attacks.

So what does it all mean? Well after weapons inspectors investigated Iraq and found nothing, Bush (backed by the media) conviced the entire nation that they were hiding them from inspectors. He pulls the plug on the inpections and invades Iraq, much to the delight of the media (who enjoyed high ratings once again)

Now, the media has turned away from Bush, because America has turned away from president BUSH (America=ratings) for screwing up Iraq, but you did not see any objection to the invasion on any media outlet before did you? All you saw was the media spoon feeding more and more reasons to get revenge on anyone.

The easily fooled american people wanted revenge, but they did not want revenge on random countrys. Rumsfeld and Cheney closed the gap between random country and Terrorist threat. And the only people who really gained from all of this right from the beginning was, the media.

Well the white house had its usuall excuse about the banner, saying "the navy put that banner up".

In the presidents most recent speach, he did not say victory once. This leads me to believe that we are not in this war to win, we are in it to not lose.

I cant watch the video right now but I assume that its about how the media backed the white house on everything related to foreign policy.
This is not a surprise to me because in my opinion, the media wants ratings. It always has and always will. The world could be ending, and fox would cover it to the last second.

What that leads me to believe is after the intel failure of 9-11, the United States was in a shocked state, and after the white house was done trying to unify everyone with american flags (while the media enjoyed high ratings), it was in more of an angry, blame game state. Therefore the media would move to capitolize on this anger by portraying president Bush as "tough on terrorism".

That led to the mind games of Donald Rumsfeld, who basically ignored intel once again just as Condelezza Rice did before the 9-11 attacks.

So what does it all mean? Well after weapons inspectors investigated Iraq and found nothing, Bush (backed by the media) conviced the entire nation that they were hiding them from inspectors. He pulls the plug on the inpections and invades Iraq, much to the delight of the media (who enjoyed high ratings once again)

Now, the media has turned away from Bush, because America has turned away from president BUSH (America=ratings) for screwing up Iraq, but you did not see any objection to the invasion on any media outlet before did you? All you saw was the media spoon feeding more and more reasons to get revenge on anyone.

The easily fooled american people wanted revenge, but they did not want revenge on random countrys. Rumsfeld and Cheney closed the gap between random country and Terrorist threat. And the only people who really gained from all of this right from the beginning was, the media.

IMO

Click to expand...

Try again. Saddam Hussein is ON RECORD at the UN as being in posession of weapons grade chemicals and bio agents that are TO THIS DAY unaccounted for.

He used chemical weapons on Iran and on the Kurds.

Saddam led weapons inspectors on a 13 year wild goose chase, and was nailed AFTER the first Gulf War (93) with a bio lab which was justification enough to resume hostilities then and there.

So claiming he didn't have WMD's is either wilfull blindness or lying. Either way it's for nothing more than partisan politics and trying to say the elephant shit in your yard wasn't dumped by an elephant.

Try again. Saddam Hussein is ON RECORD at the UN as being in posession of weapons grade chemicals and bio agents that are TO THIS DAY unaccounted for.

He used chemical weapons on Iran and on the Kurds.

Saddam led weapons inspectors on a 13 year wild goose chase, and was nailed AFTER the first Gulf War (93) with a bio lab which was justification enough to resume hostilities then and there.

So claiming he didn't have WMD's is either wilfull blindness or lying. Either way it's for nothing more than partisan politics and trying to say the elephant shit in your yard wasn't dumped by an elephant.

Click to expand...

Dems have been doing that for five years

Here is what Dems said about Saddam, WMD's, and the threat he is was with them

Does it really matter... Even if WMD's were found, photographed, documented,sorted, and put on display on the Whitehouse lawn.
The Dems would claim that somehow George Bush himself hid them up his ass snuck into Baghdad, then shot them out into sealed canisters and placed them in a secret room in the labyrinth under Sadams palace previous to the invasion...

Does it really matter... Even if WMD's were found, photographed, documented,sorted, and put on display on the Whitehouse lawn.
The Dems would claim that somehow George Bush himself hid them up his ass snuck into Baghdad, then shot them out into sealed canisters and placed them in a secret room in the labyrinth under Sadams palace previous to the invasion...

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!